Trying to get someone fired from his job is not "publicly bash".
The author could have written an essay like "Brandan Eich's views on matter X are bad". He could also have tried to outvote people with Brendan's ideas in actual voting.
Asking for a boycott in a company that chose to elect him as a CEO not because of some professional action of Brendan or his company, but because of his private action, is crossing the line.
It is bullying. "You have to not be against X or else...". Now it's gay marriage, it could just as well be the 99% or OWS, or gun laws or whatever..
Many other disagree with your opinions, and instead put the line elsewhere.
Here's a first-grade teacher who was fired for posting her private views on Facebook. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/teacher-should-be-fired-f...
> "The reason why she was suspended was because the incident created serious problems at the school that impeded the functioning of the building," board president Theodore Best said in a statement at the time. "You can't simply fire someone for what they have on a Facebook page; but if that spills over and affects the classroom then you can take action."
A judge agreed with the decision. The final decision is described in http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-jersey-district-dismiss... .
> The ALJ noted that generally public reactions to an individual’s statement cannot limit their rights to free speech, but that “in a public school setting thoughtless words can destroy the partnership between home and school that is essential to the mission of the schools.” The appellate court agreed with the ALJ’s findings.
So even in a place with 1st amendment protections, it's still possible for people to call for someone to be fired, and have it happen. Completely legal, even. A bunch of people complained:
> Two angry parents went to her principal’s office to express their outrage, and one parent threatened to remove her child from school. The school also received at least a dozen irate phone calls. Twenty to 25 people gathered outside the school to protest because of the statements, and news reporters and camera crews from major news organizations descended upon the school. At the next Home-School Council meeting, the majority of the meeting was devoted to O’Brien’s posts and parents expressed their outrage over the posts. When O’Brien was made aware of the outrage against her posts, she was surprised that her posts had led to such a reaction.
Certainly those people disagree that your line exists where you think it does, because they do believe that the teacher's private actions certainly are relevant.
BTW, this is not bullying. You are misusing the term. There is no sense of physical or social imbalance of power used to intimidate.
People call of the resignation of other people all the time, even for events from private lifes with no direct, significant effect on their professional life.
Here's one example: http://voices.yahoo.com/san-francisco-mayor-newsom-admits-ad... . Supervisor McGoldrick (of San Francisco) called for Mayor Gavin Newsom's resignation after Newson's affair with Rippey-Tourk become public. I think that who one has sex with is a private matter, so long as both can give legal consent. But it was enough for McGoldrick to say "the mayor failed as a leader and a role model."
Your view, if I understand you correctly, is that McGoldrick was bullying, and crossed the line? April Davila, author of that yahoo.com link, disagrees: "McGoldrick can say what he likes, it is (at least for the time being) still a free country, but I for one hope Newsom stays."
So you see that many people clearly disagree with your opinion and also with your framing.
Yes. But that's not an argument.
Are you content with "other people disagee with my opinion" as a measure of its worth? It doesn't even matter that some judges have disagreed with my opinion.
Some people disagree with things like "not being racist". And judges have also made bad decisions, that now everybody derides, for ages.
If we are to have a valid conversation, it would have be with arguments about the intristic value of what we are discussing. What's good and what should people be doing is not merely a matter of "some people are OK with it".
Even democracy doens't justify things merely by "some people wanting X". It raises this bar, asking for the majority (or the plurality) or people wanting it -- and it even adds other procedures and safeguards in too.
You disagree, and say that certain things are unfair.
You mentioned that it's unfair to bring private views/actions into professional life. I pointed out a couple of examples where people do exactly that. Which is fine - you're free to say that Supervisor McGoldrick is unfair. Just realize that you're calling a lot of people unfair by your definition.
My point of bringing up those other arguments is to show that many people disagree with you. This means that you need to have a stronger basis for your argument, otherwise I'm free to treat it as an opinion that I can easily ignore.
You mention "not being racist" as a similar argument. But in the US it's completely fair to demand that others conform with one's racist ideas. I can hold a protest on the sidewalk in front of a store and demand that they only hire Trafalmadorians. People won't respect me, and it would be illegal for the store to do so, but it's completely fair that I make that demand and be able to protest peacefully. There is no law which prevents me from being racist and ignoring Trafalmadorians that I meet on the street. Those laws you talk about deal with government, businesses, education, public accommodation, etc. but not individual people. (Otherwise it would be a free speech and right to assemble violation. Hence why there are still racist private clubs.)
If I were were a Jain, who believes that not even insects should be killed, I might demand that the president step down because he killed a fly once on TV.
If I were strongly anti-fur, it's fair for me to demand that someone step down at CEO for wearing a coon-skin cap at a private Halloween party.
If I were an absolute teetotaler, I might demand that a CEO resign because he enjoys a beer every once in a while in his spare time, while I believe that no one in a position of responsibility should ever drink alcohol.
I am completely of the opinion that anyone can call for the resignation of someone else based on "99% or OWS, or gun laws or whatever".
What's "unfair" about those? Nothing. I say that none of these demands, including a demand based on one's political contributions to a state constitutional amendment, are not at all "unfair". "Unrealistic", certainly, but there's nothing intrinsically unfair about these demands.
So my opinion is that all of these are "fair". Your opinion is that some are "unfair". It's easy to find people who disagree with you. So now we've got dozens of opinions.
You also mention that people who make these unfair arguments are bullying. Would you explain that logic? I don't see how these are connected at all.
